Quality matters: trends in successful ITN proposals

For the past twelve years the European Commission has been supporting thousands of young researchers for doctoral training across Europe. Early Stage Researchers (ESRs), to use these researchers’ official description, are being trained through Marie Skłodowska-Curie Action (MSCA) Innovative Training Networks (ITNs), a longstanding funding scheme of the Horizon 2020 programme. ITNs are a collaboration, also known as training networks, between academic and non-academic (often referred to as simply industry) institutions. Their aim is to train the next generation of leaders in their respective research areas and business sectors as a consortium.

Any consortium looking to obtain funding for an ITN faces fierce competition as the overall success rates have shrunk to 7-8% over the past five years. However these percentages can vary depending on the individual panels, which represent eight scientific areas, to which an ITN proposal is submitted. This factor is often overlooked by applicants. In this article, we will be looking into each panel to find out which are more competitive than others and how competition has developed over the years. This will be done by measuring the evolution of the so-called cut-off score for funding, i.e. the minimum score above which a proposal will be funded.

What are an ITN panels/scientific areas?

Each ETN applicant must choose a panel to which their proposal will be associated as part of the submission process. EIDs and EJDs are evaluated by separate multidisciplinary panels. These Applicants can refine their selection using descriptors which can also cover other disciplines that may be involved. The three evaluating experts, also known as evaluators, will be assigned to proposals based on the panel and descriptors selected. This highlights the importance of perfectly matching the panel and descriptors to the proposal. There are eight panels:

Chemistry (CHE)

Social Sciences and Humanities (SOC)

Economic Sciences (ECO)

Information Science and Engineering (ENG)

Environment and Geo-Sciences (ENV)

Life Sciences (LIF)

Mathematics (MAT),

and Physics (PHY).

After an ITN proposal has been submitted and the submission deadline has closed, the evaluation is managed by the Research Executive Agency (REA) with the assistance of the above mentioned evaluators. The evaluations performed by these experts are on a personal basis. They don’t act as representatives of any entity, be it their country, employer, or any other body. Before any evaluation takes place each expert must declare any known conflicts of interest. The REA staff ensures that a fair process is carried out, in line with the EC’s rules. The REA will also be informed of any conflict of interest that should emerge during the evaluation process. All panels have a chairperson (“chair”) alongside several vice-chairs. All eight panels are managed by REA staff in assistance of the chair and vice-chairs. These don’t evaluate any proposals, their tasks include:

“finalising the assignment of three experts to each proposal,

providing guidance to evaluators,

checking the quality and consistency of the experts' reports,

drafting the consensus report,

attending the panel review meetings to endorse the final ranked lists of proposals for funding.”

Comparing ITN competitiveness within individual panels

We have measured the average funding threshold of ITNs since 2014 in order to illustrate the increasing trends in competition. The graph below represents the minimum score above which a proposal will be funded. We can observe an upwards trend going from 91 in 2014 to 94.7 in 2019. This notably means that a higher quality and well rounded proposal is needed to be evaluated successfully and the trend is further increasing.

However, the results may differ if we observe the trends for each individual panel. Firstly, we notice that the funding range for Chemistry (CHE) and Environment (ENV) kept following an upwards trend. In the Engineering (ENG), Life Sciences (LIF) and Mathematics (MAT) panels, we can see that the cut-off scores for funding in 2017-2019 are higher than in previous years. At the same time Physics (PHY) recorded its lowest threshold in 2019 and Social Sciences and Humanities (SOC), after two exceptionally tough years has continued a slight upwards trends in 2018 and 2019.

We can also observe that European Industrial Doctorates (EIDs) usually have lower funding thresholds. However, in the last 2019 call, the EID drew a record-breaking funding threshold of 92.6. Though this has not prevented us from being successful in two EIDs that we supported! Despite the threshold for EJDs going up and down in recent years, the average trend line is pointing upwards.

What we can draw from these figures is that quality matters more than ever, as proposals must reach scores that are close to perfection to secure funding. At accelopment, we are happy to accompany you along the road to perfection with our proven expertise in ITNs.

Secondary Menu

Contact Us

About Us

Based in Zurich, accelopment AG is a competent service provider in the public funding sector. accelopment assists universities, companies and other organisations in the acquisition of and participation in publicly funded innovation projects. The company specialises in European research, development and innovation support programmes such as Horizon 2020 and Eurostars. The focus is primarily on projects in the life sciences, information and communication technologies, the environment and energy sectors.